- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Important High Court Judgments On...
Important High Court Judgments On BNS, BNSS & BSA : Anniversary Special Edition
Upasana Sajeev
1 July 2025 11:01 AM IST
The new criminal laws, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, came into effect exactly a year ago, on July 1, 2024. As we mark their first anniversary, let us look at how the High Courts have interpreted and applied these provisions over the past year.ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT FIR Lodged On Or After July 1 Would Be Under IPC If...
The new criminal laws, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, came into effect exactly a year ago, on July 1, 2024. As we mark their first anniversary, let us look at how the High Courts have interpreted and applied these provisions over the past year.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Read Similar Judgments From Delhi High Court, Gauhati High Court, Madras High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case title – Deepu And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in a particular case, if the FIR is lodged on or after July 1, 2024 (the date of commencement of 3 New Criminal Laws), for an offence committed before that date, it would be registered under the provisions of the IPC. Still, the investigation will continue as per Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Court also held that in a particular case, if the investigation is pending on July 1, 2024, the investigation will continue as per the CrPC; however, the cognizance of the police report will be taken as per the procedure laid down under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case title - Vipin Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that neither a person can be denied bail nor his bail plea be opposed mainly on the ground that extracts of the case diary had been annexed with his bail plea.
During the hearing, the informant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the bail application, contending that the accused had access to the case diary and had even annexed copies of certain extracts with the bail plea, which indicated that he could influence the course of the investigation.
Rejecting this submission, the bench noted that Section 230 BNSS (Supply to accused of copy of police report and other documents) itself provides a mandate to the Magistrate that upon appearance of the accused, he shall furnish to the accused copies of the police report, copies of the statements recorded under Section 180(3), the confessions and statements recorded under Section 183 and any other document forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report to the accused.
Case title - Raman Sahni vs. State Of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201
The Allahabad High Court has observed that with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Criminal Procedure Code (UP Amendment) Act, 2018 - which imposed restrictions on the grant of anticipatory bail in the State (effective from June 6, 2019), in cases under specific laws including the UP Gangsters Act - stands 'impliedly repealed'.
A bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed that when a State amends a law on a subject in the Concurrent List, and the Parliament later makes a change to that same law, the State law must give way to the Parliament's law, even if the said law adds to, changes, or repeals the law made by the legislature of the State.
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Smt. Parisha Trivedi & Anr. Versus State of Chhattisgarh
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently pointed that Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has widened the discretion conferred upon a criminal court wile deciding the anticipatory bail plea of a person apprehending arrest.
Justice Goutam Bhaduri highlighted that the legislature has deleted the "guiding factors", contained in the erstwhile CrPC, from the corresponding anticipatory bail provision in BNSS.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Title: PRINCE v. STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 800
The Delhi High Court has observed that procedure with respect to anticipatory bail pleas filed in relation to FIRs lodged prior to enforcement of new criminal laws should be governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, if the date of filing such application is on or after July 1, 2024.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani reasoned that Section 531(2)(a) BNSS prescribes that proceedings must be continued and disposed of under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) "only in cases where they were pending" immediately before July 01.
Title: Shri S. Rabban Alam v. CBI Though Its Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 797
Giving a “possible interpretation” of Section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the Delhi High Court said that only if an appeal is pending before the new law came into force, can such an appeal be continued under the Cr.P.C.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said, “As per the general, settled principle of law, an appeal is considered to be a continuation of the trial. However, the wording of section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS is amenable to a possible interpretation that if an appeal is pending before the coming into force of the BNSS, only then would such appeal be continued under the Cr.P.C.”
Title: Suleman Samad V. State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 112
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the trial courts must promptly pass orders and must not mechanically adjourn bail applications moved in cases covered by Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where the undertrial prisoners have already undergone one half of the maximum imprisonment.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in case a judge proceeds on leave, it must be brought to the notice of the concerned Link Judge that such cases are to be taken up on priority, either on the next date or at the shortest possible date.
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an accused under the Arms Act, 1959 cannot seek default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely on the ground that the chargesheet filed against him in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS, lacks the sanction to prosecute.
Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is mandatory to prosecute a person for offences under Sections 25/ 27.
Justice Tejas Karia conceded that if an incomplete chargesheet is filed by the prosecution, it gives rise to the right of default bail, even if the same is filed within the prescribed period.
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Case Title: Ritumani Deka v. The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 96
The Gauhati High Court recently asked Assam's Director General of Police to issue necessary direction to the police stations under his jurisdiction, not to register any case under Section 106 (2) of the BNS–pertaining to death by rash driving which is not culpable homicide–which has not come into force till date.
Case Title: Bittu Kumar v State of Assam (Bail Appln./1662/2025)
The Gauhati High Court, in an order dated June 2, emphasized that in cases where an arrestee is not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of arrest due to medical urgency, the magistrate must verify the status of such arrestee. The court remarked that even in such cases the magistrate has to, either through a personal visit or video conferencing, verify the status of the arrestee by passing a remand order to judicial or police custody.
The bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita held, "Section 187 of BNSS categorically states that subject to condition of bail, the Magistrate may authorize his detention either in judicial or in police custody. Unless, such an order is passed, the initial arrest of the petitioner beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest, would become illegal".
Case Title: Nazir Hussain & 3 Ors. v. State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 26
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on granting anticipatory bail will apply to offences either under Section 65 or Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The Court held that the word "and" appearing in Section 482(4) must be read as "or" to give effect to the intention of the legislature.
The Court noted that it was unlikely that a person would be accused of both these offences. Hence, to hold that the embargo will apply only if a person is accused of both Section 65 and Section 70(2) would be absurd.
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Bhupesh Thakur Vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 56
Clarifying the limitations of Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, particularly in cases involving transgender individuals the Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that a transgender cannot invoke Section 69 of the which penalizes sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage.
While explaining the actual mandate of Sec 69 and confirming the interim bail of an accused Justice Sandeep Sharma observed, “Since under BNS, “woman” and “transgender” have been given different identity and have been defined independently, under Section 2 coupled with the fact that physical relationship inter-se victim prosecutrix and bail petitioner, if any, was developed prior to surgery of victim-prosecutrix, whereby she allegedly got her sex changed, there appears to be force in the claim of the bail petitioner that he could not have been booked under Section 69 of the BNS, rather he is required to be dealt with in terms of the under Section 18 (d) of the Act”.
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Case Title: Mohd Ismail Koka Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 150
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while invoking its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has held that the provision has an overriding effect and is not to be read as subject to Section 359 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 320 of the CrPC).
Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani thus quashed an FIR registered under Sections 452 (trespass) and 376B (marital rape) of the IPC, emphasizing that the extraordinary powers under Section 528 can be exercised to secure the ends of justice, especially in matrimonial disputes where parties have amicably settled.
Case Title: Mohd Afzal Beigh Vs Noor Hussain
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 177
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that the provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) do not bar Magistrates from adhering to the pre-cognizance notice requirements under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A bench of Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani emphasized that while the N.I. Act mandates specific procedures for complaints under Section 138 (cheque dishonour), the issuance of pre-cognizance notices to the accused under BNSS remains permissible and "justice-oriented."
Interpreting the mandate of Section 142 N.I. Act the Court noted that Section 142 begins with a "Non-obstante" clause, overriding the general CrPC/BNSS procedures. However, it only bars cognizance based on police reports (not complaints) and mandates a written complaint by the payee within one month of the cause of action. The Court clarified that this does not exclude the Magistrate's discretion to issue pre-cognizance notices under Section 223 BNSS, which aids in assessing the accused's defence early.
Case Title: Ravinder Kumar & Others Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 200
Shedding light on the Legislative intent behind the provision of allowing the deferment of Cross-examination of a prosecution witness under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an application for deferment of cross-examination of a witness or a set of witnesses must be filed as early as possible but in any case, before the commencement of cross-examination, for once the defence strategy is exposed, the object of such deferral pales into insignificance.
Case Title: Aamina & Ors Vs Aamir Ahmad Mir & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 215
Interpreting the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an order merely issuing notice in a proceeding is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing a petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, reaffirmed that Section 438(2) of the BNSS creates a statutory bar against exercising revisional powers in relation to such interlocutory orders.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Kalandar Shafi & Others
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 518
The Karnataka High Court has held that as per Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the 15-day police custody must be sought within the first forty days in cases of offences which are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment
It clarified that the phraseology used in Section 187 BNSS is an offence punishable "for ten years or more", explaining that 10 years or more would mean that the threshold punishment is 10 years and not a punishment up to 10 years. The court said that if the punishment term is between 1-10 years then Section 187(3) BNSS cannot be pressed for police custody as probe for offences punishable upto 10 years must be completed in 60 days.
Case Title: K Ramakrishna AND Assistant Director
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
The Karnataka High Court while rejecting a bail plea of accused under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, said that petitioner cannot invoke the proviso to Section 479 BNSS on the ground of one-third punishment period undergone, adding that it was not applicable on the facts of the case since several cases were registered against him.
Justice HP Sandesh in its order observed that Section 479 of BNSS makes it clear that the benefit of first proviso to Section 479 is subject to Section 479(2) of BNSS and the Court has to take note of the third proviso, thereof, wherein investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence are in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court.
Case Title: Arunkumar AND State of Karnataka
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
The Karnataka High Court has held that from July 1, 2024 onwards when the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) came into force, the police registering an FIR under the repealed Criminal Procedure Code, is incorrect.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan, sitting at Kalaburagi bench, allowed the petition filed by Arunkumar and quashed the FIR registered against him under Section 376, 323, 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code on July 1.
Case Title: BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND Shivananda S Patil
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
Clarifying the procedure to be followed by magisterial courts on issuance of notice on complaints under Section 223 BNSS, the Karnataka High Court Friday underlined that the opportunity of hearing to be provided to the accused in the provision is not an empty formality, without which cognizance cannot be taken.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order while hearing a petition filed by BJP leader and MLA Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) who had approached the court questioning the notice issued to him by the magisterial court on the defamation complaint filed by Shivananda S Patil. The petitioner had claimed that the notice issued to him did not follow the procedure as per law.
Read Similar order from Kerala High Court
Case Title: Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15125 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
The Karnataka High Court has said that in the event a notice issued by the police summoning a citizen under Section 35 of the BNSS does not contain the crime number, the offence alleged or the appending of the FIR, subject to just exceptions, the noticee is not obliged to appear before the officer who has directed him to appear and no coercive action can be taken against him.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Summoning to the Police Station is not summoning a person to a happy place. A citizen must know as to why he is being summoned.”
Case Title: K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
The Karnataka High Court has said that before initiating a complaint under Section 379 BNSS for offences affecting administration of justice–like giving false evidence or fabricating documents–a court must apply its judicial mind and come to a conclusion with reasons that it is necessary to hold a preliminary inquiry or initiate a complaint.
The petitioner had approached the high court questioning session court's January 23 order wherein the office was directed to register a separate petition stating that the defendant/petitioner has tendered false evidence. This happened after respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS, stating that the petitioner/defendant "filed a false affidavit, which amounts to perjury".
Case Title: Ashok AND Fayaz Aahmad
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka HIgh Court has said that the procedure of hearing the accused at the stage of taking cognizance of the complaint as prescribed in the first proviso to Section 223 of BNSS shall not apply to the complaints for offence made under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
For context, Section 223 of BNSS makes a departure from the earlier provision contained in Section 200 Cr.P.C. Under the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of 223, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence, without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
A single judge, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Ashok who had approached the court questioning the cognizance order taken by the Magistrate court on the complaint filed by one Fayaz Aahmad without issuing him a notice for hearing.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sunil Rajan K. v Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
The Kerala High Court held the criteria for the Magistrate to direct any person to give voice sample under Section 349 of BNSS is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that such sample is required for the purpose of investigation.
“Under Section 349, the criteria is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that it is expedient to direct any person to provide his voice sample, again, for the purposes of the investigation or proceeding under BNSS. Therefore, the thrust is upon the question whether the voice sample is required for the purpose of investigation of the crime” Justice C. Jayachandran held.
Case Title: Sajith v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
The Kerala High Court has held that the limit of 60 days provided in Section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to file a petition of discharge is directory and not mandatory. Justice A. Badharudeen further held that the period of 60 days will start from the date of supply of copies of documents to the accused.
Case Title: V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court has held that protection afforded to an accused of unsound mind or with intellectual disability under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 has wider scope and will thus apply retrospectively, to pending applications.
Justice K Babu held that BNSS will apply retrospectively to proceedings prior to July 01, 2024, to ensure fair trial for persons with intellectual disability or mental disability.
Case Title: Muhammad Rasheed v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
The Kerala High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner who was arrayed as 1st accused for allegedly committing an offence of organized crime under Section 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 111 (1) of the BNS defines organised crime as a continuing criminal activity committed by a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Section 111 (1)(i) defines 'organized crime syndicate' and Section 111 (1) (ii) defines 'continuing unlawful activity'.
Justice C S Dias observed that prime facie an offence under Section 111 (1) is not attracted against the petitioner since no charge sheet has been filed against him in any Court in the 'preceding period of last ten years' to satisfy the mandate of 'continuing unlawful activity' as defined under Section 111(1) (ii).
Case Title: Arunkumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Kerala High Court recently held that the benefit of Section 479 of BNSS, particularly the first proviso thereof, cannot be applied retrospectively to convicted prisoners. For context, Section 479 BNSS deals with the maximum period of time for which a undertrial prisoner can be detained.
Justice C. S. Sudha noted that the Supreme Court by an order in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons has made Section 479 retrospectively applicable to undertrials in cases registered before July 1, 2024. The High Court said that the Apex Court has not given the benefit of the Section to convicted prisoners. Thus at this stage, Court said it cannot extend the benefit to convicts.
Case Title: K. N. Anand Kumar v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
Remarking that Indian jails are well equipped to deal with any casualties to prisoners, the Kerala High Court has observed that a person arrested in serious offences cannot be released on bail merely by claiming to be 'sick' and relying on the first proviso to Section 480(1) of BNSS.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan stated that the first proviso to Section 480(1) BNSS is applicable only in cases where a prison Medical Officer submits a report that the prisoner cannot be given medical treatment within the prison facility. It also noted that bail may be given in cases where the prisoner is nearing the end of his life.
Case Title: P.D. Parameswaran Pillai and others v. T.N. Ramachandran Nair and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
The Kerala High Court has held that the aiding provision of Section 70 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or the corresponding Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be resorted to by the propounder of a Will by diluting the mandatory provisions under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act.
One of the substantial questions of law for consideration of the Court was whether the genuineness of the Will could be established in the circumstances in Section 71 of the IEA/ Section 70 of the BSA.
Answering the questioning in the affirmative, the Single Judge set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, and found that in the present case, the 'other evidence' as required under Setion 70 of the BSA can be used to prove the Will since the attesting witnesses had denied the execution of the same.
Police Cannot Attach Bank Account Under S.107 BNSS Without Magistrate's Approval : Kerala High Court
Case title: Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. V. State Of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
The Kerala High Court held that a bank account can be attached under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, only on the orders of the jurisdictional Magistrate and that police cannot uniterally do so.
The Court noted that the CrPC earlier lacked a specific provision for seizure or attachment of proceeds of crime, except under Chapter VII-A relating to foreign jurisdictions. This gap has been addressed under BNSS, 2023, by retaining Section 102 as Section 106 and introducing Section 107, which now governs the attachment of properties derived from criminal activity.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
The Madras High Court recently observed that the offence under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is a non-cognizable and bailable offence and an FIR could be filed for these offence only after getting appropriate orders from the Magistrate.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed an FIR filed against the man. Though the court noted that the FIR itself was not sustainable in law and thus the anticipatory bail was also not maintainable, the court thought it fit to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC and interfere with the FIR.
Case Title: Mr G Venkateshan v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras High Court has emphasised that the term “offences against women” which is excluded from plea bargaining would mean only gender-centric or gender-neutral offences and not non-gender offences committed against women.
“Offences like harassment to woman under the Special Act or sexual offences, criminal force and assault against woman or offences related to marriage were the victim is the woman will fall under gender centric/gender neutral offences. Unlike I.P.C fortunately, the Bharathiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS) has brought all these offences under one chapter and grouped in Chapter V of BNS under the caption “of offences against woman and child.” In the considered view of this Court, only those offences will fall under gender centric or gender neutral offences to attract the expression “offence against a woman” and be excluded from the scope of plea bargaining,” the court observed.
Case Title: R v B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
In a recent decision, the Madras High Court has noted that the Central Government has notified only a handful of entities as experts under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act whose certificates were necessary under Section 63 (4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam for admitting electronic evidence.
Noting that no experts are notified in Tamil Nadu, Justice GR Swaminathan held that absence of experts would deny the right of access to justice which is a fundamental right. The court opined that experts should be notified expeditiously to commensurate with the possible demand. The court thus directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) to notify experts within 3 months.
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Prajna Prakash Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 25
The Orissa High Court has held that a Magistrate can order investigation against a public servant only after complying with the requirements provided under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), i.e. upon receiving report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him and after considering the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged.
Case Title: Priyadarshini Amrita Panda v. Biswajit Pati
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
The Orissa High Court has held that it is not mandatory on the part of Court to hold a preliminary inquiry as provided under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into commission of offences referred to in Section 215, BNSS in order to make or reject to make complaint.
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Case title: AXXXXX v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 256
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a High Court under Section 528 BNSS can entertain a plea for registering an FIR and monitoring an investigation by forming a Special Investigating Team (SIT) but the complainant should show a sufficient reason for not approaching the Ilaqa Magistrate first
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "In a given case, if the facts/circumstances so warrant, the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to entertain and consider plea(s) seeking registration of an FIR, monitoring of investigation in an FIR, constituting an SIT (Special Investigating Team), change of investigating officer & all such prayer(s) of such kind and nature. However, it would be prudent that an applicant/complainant, while seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 in the first instance seeking prayer(s) of above nature, shows sufficient cause for not having approached the Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate in the first instance."
Title: Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 118
In a significant development, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that case involving small quantity under the NDPS Act is "Bailable" by operation of BNSS and accused will be entitled for bail without filing bail application.
The case pertains to the alleged recovery of 1 gram of heroin. While setting aside the order rejecting pre-arrest bail the Court said, "when the contravention under the NDPS Act involves 'Small Quantity', the offences are 'Bailable'. When the drug quantity falls in small category, the offence is bailable by operation of BNSS, 2023. Thus, any person accused of such an offence is entitled to bail without filing any bail application, subject to furnishing the requisite bail bonds."
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Title: Badri Prasad v Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected petition
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 379
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India only states that accused could not be compelled to be a witness against himself and not that the accused could not be compelled to be a witness at all.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain further observed that under Section 349 of BNSS, the Legislature had explicitly empowered the Class-I Magistrate to direct individuals, including the accused to furnish voice samples for investigation.
Title: Gordhan Lal Soni & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 399
The Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR filed by the police on directions from the CJM based on a complaint under Section 175(3), BNSS, calling it a “rubber-stamp decision making” and observing complete judicial oversight on part of the CJM. It was opined that no judicial mind was applied for making an independent determination regarding prima facie existence of the case against the accused.
Case Title: Ram Chandra Bisu & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 353
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Section 233 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 leaves no doubt that even if complaint proceedings are already undergoing in relation to particular allegations and facts, and the police officials receive a report/compliant on the same set of facts, they are not barred from registering an FIR on those facts.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga added that the only mandatory procedure was that the Magistrate shall stay the further proceedings in the complaint case that was instituted prior to registration of the FIR, to await for the outcome of the inquiry/investigation.
Title: Ashraj Stone Private Limited v Karav International
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that in cases where the complainant is a 'victim' of crime, as defined under Section 2(y) of BNSS, s/he is not required to prefer an application before the High Court seeking leave to appeal against acquittal, as is provided under Section 419(4) of BNSS.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar clarified that a leave to appeal was required by the complainant, as mentioned under Section 419(4), in cases where the complainant was not the victim. Since criminal proceedings could be set in motion by anyone having knowledge of commission of any cognizable offences, if a complaint was filed by a person who was not a victim, then such person would need a leave of appeal under this provision.
Title: Gajendra Singh Shekhawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
Rajasthan High Court has clarified that in light of proviso to Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (“BNSS”), where the police has already filed the report following investigation against the prime accused, no further investigation can be carried out without the permission of the trial court.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a quashing petition against FIR filed for cheating and criminal breach of trust in which four charge sheets were already filed and no role was attributed to the petitioner, neither his name was arrayed anywhere as an accused. The Court found that no culpability of commission of any offence was attributable to the petitioner and disposed of the petition.
Case Title: Mala Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
The Rajasthan High Court recently allowed a murder accused's plea under Section 94 BNSS by treating it as one filed under Section 95 BNSS, thereby expanding the provision's (Section 95) scope in the peculiar facts of the case and directed the trial court to obtain the call and location details of the witnesses in the case.
A single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order observed that Section 94 of BNSS can be invoked only either at the instance of the court or the officer in-charge of the police station, who in a given situation, may consider any document to be produced for the benefit of the Court.
Title: Vikram Manshani v Praveen Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
The Rajasthan High Court held that no special leave is required to file an appeal under Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), against an acquittal order wherein the complainant in the case is the victim himself.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar observed that Section 413 of BNSS corresponded to Section 372, CrPC where the proviso laid down the right of a victim to appeal against an order of acquittal, or an order convicting the accused for a lesser offence, or imposing inadequate compensation.
Title: Mohammad Abid & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
The Rajasthan High Court recently noted that Section 170 of the BNSS conferred “limited preventive jurisdiction” to the Executive Magistrate and that such preventive action was not a tool for punitive action or a substitute for criminal procedure.
Section 170 of BNSS empowers a police officer to arrest a person without a warrant if they have knowledge of a potential commission of cognisable offence and believe that the commission of offence cannot be otherwise prevented.
Justice Farjand Ali criticised the action of an Executive Magistrate in detaining persons and granting them bail on an extra-statutory condition of producing a character certificate. The court noted that instead of operating as a Magistrate under a Constitutional democracy, the Executive Magistrate had acted like a “Raja” dispensing justice a t whim.
Also Read - One Year Of New Criminal Laws : Key Supreme Court Judgments On BNS, BNSS